Capitalism vs. Communism

[Sovietiya]

This proves you don't know much about socialism -> communism.
It will never happen (communism), so I believe. (But I think some form of socialism is more feasable).

It is a very long fairy story to explain 'the transition', and it is very unrealistic, and the state plays a big role, but it is along the lines of through democratic control (of both politics and economics), the state (keep in mind it is democratic, so the state is 'controlled' by the people) guides the country, to achieve many socialistic-style goals, and when they are all achieved, and 'utopia' is reached, the state becomes obsolete and slowly degrades since people don't need it any more.

Not a very good explanation, and yes it is utter BS and will never happen.
But it a rough explanation. Do some research. 'True' socialism is state control via democracy, so it is not monopolised by politicians (like what happened in the Soviet Union).

Heres some good links to look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_politics

Hope that helps

finally, another rational individual!

Thank you, sir!

[Zersium]

finally, another rational individual!

Thank you, sir!

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?
That's just my opinion anyway. I'm glad you're a smart person who (unlike some of these people) doesn't fail to realise Communism has never been achieved. And ESPECIALLY by China, the biggest Capitalist on Earth. (I get people saying "China = Communist.")

[Moral Libertarians]

Thank you, sir!

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?

Go further.

Inequality is our strength. The very fact that we are all different, with different skills and tastes, is what makes division of labour - and by extension, market-based societies - possible. This, of course, leads to much greater efficiency in the allocation of resources.

[Zersium]

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?

Go further.

Inequality is our strength. The very fact that we are all different, with different skills and tastes, is what makes division of labour - and by extension, market-based societies - possible. This, of course, leads to much greater efficiency in the allocation of resources.

Exactly! Because of inequality, we compete. And competing is how we progress. Where would we be if the Hot war eminated from the SU? TV's would be black-and-white, and I'd probably not be talking to you right now.

Because essentially, if all are equal you can't progress in a job because that makes you superior. Therefore Equality is flawed.

[Sovietiya]

Thank you, sir!

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?
That's just my opinion anyway. I'm glad you're a smart person who (unlike some of these people) doesn't fail to realise Communism has never been achieved. And ESPECIALLY by China, the biggest Capitalist on Earth. (I get people saying "China = Communist.")

Well I never said it was possible.
In fact I said it was impossible.

But I think the consensus now is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
In effect meaning, if you are born with a disability, but are still able-bodied in someway, then you will receive the proper help and support to achieve your dreams. I am a good example. I have autism, and I could not cope in public school, so I had to go to private school, and the government paid for that. If they did not do that, I would not have been able to go to college (where I am now), and have a prospect for a job.

But if you are completely disabled, then it also means you won't be left to the mercy of others to stay alive.
I have know people so mentally disabled, that they will never be able to work. But does that mean they have to suffer just because they are disabled like that?

[Sovietiya]

Inequality is our strength.

I have heard this somewhere before...


"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

[Zersium]

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?
That's just my opinion anyway. I'm glad you're a smart person who (unlike some of these people) doesn't fail to realise Communism has never been achieved. And ESPECIALLY by China, the biggest Capitalist on Earth. (I get people saying "China = Communist.")

Well I never said it was possible.
In fact I said it was impossible.

But I think the consensus now is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
In effect meaning, if you are born with a disability, but are still able-bodied in someway, then you will receive the proper help and support to achieve your dreams. I am a good example. I have autism, and I could not cope in public school, so I had to go to private school, and the government paid for that. If they did not do that, I would not have been able to go to college (where I am now), and have a prospect for a job.

But if you are completely disabled, then it also means you won't be left to the mercy of others to stay alive.
I have know people so mentally disabled, that they will never be able to work. But does that mean they have to suffer just because they are disabled like that?

Okay that was a bad example on my part.
(I also said you referenced Communism is imposible.)

Hmm. Alright, well for example take a look back at my earlier post. the SU wanted complete equality right? So really, if everyone must be the same as the SU suggests, then therefore my job is irrelevant because Naturally, Promotions would be seen as "superior" and therefore there'd be no-one to give promotions because they wouldn't be equal to the workers.

On paper, sure. Why not?
In practice, Communism is impossible.

[TFOTA]

Umm then how do you explain south korea were it is illegal to be a socialist or a communist and yes the poor are greatly exploited. In fact slavery would be legal is the capitalist always had their way. The same goes for child labor and illegalizing labor unions. Not to mention the fact that communist parties and socialist parties were illegal in some states in the cold war. So I really don't understand your arguement.

More to the point, I think you don't really understand capitalism.

ree

I agree, This claim is as funny as it is incorrect, Capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor; it's a fact. You sir should really study on what it means before you say you are one.

[Carbarosia]

I is the capitalist. Yesh.

[Sibirsky]

Inequality is our strength.

I have heard this somewhere before...


"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Division of labor, god damn it. He said it tight there.

[Sibirsky]

More to the point, I think you don't really understand capitalism.

ree

I agree, This claim is as funny as it is incorrect, Capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor; it's a fact. You sir should really study on what it means before you say you are one.

If capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor, then how the fuck, do the poor in capitalist societies have a much higher standard of living than the middle classes of socialist societies?

[Sanguinthium]

1. i mean if they produce shit buildings, the countries buildings will fall to shit. what incentive do they have to produce shitty items?

I am talking about all products. It's a god damn fact, that consumer goods are not as abundant, and are of much lower quality in socialist economies.

2. umad?

No, I just disagree.

3. inefficiency is fine; its simply more expensive. if you love capitalism so much, look at the efficiency of the health-care sector.

Only an idiot, would be perfectly fine with paying more, for less. The healthcare system in the US, is not a free market system. But capitalist. That's a bad combination.

4. except between 1958-1975 in leningrad, apparently.

You do realize that the USSR was much larger than that, correct? By 1991 shortages were common, even in Moscow. And outside of Moscow, shortages were common, everywhere.

5. except that my point is that the government redistributed the wealth, by heavily taxing the rich. except whenever an aspect of socialism works, that becomes capitalism magically in your mind. confirmation bias, again.
the Swedish economic system (i should know, i hold dual citizenship and spend winters there) is really strange; the nation is sorta capitalist in that the nation doesn't control the means; however, they do control how the means are used. the Swedish government has the corporations under its control to the extent that our laws limit economic activity from socialist policy, such as massive labor laws, really strict laws really high taxes, and requiring two average workers to serve on the board to protect worker interest, 80% of the population is in a union, and the fact that government controls 50% of all national revenue.. but again, when socialism works, you ignore it, deny it, or call it capitalism. ignoring the fact that we have a budget surplus of $15 billion (99 million Kronor), i think we can agree that socialist policy, such as wealth redistribution has helped Sweden immensely; and back in the days of your boy McCarthy, you could be declared a communist for being a labor union organizer. think about that before supporting unions.

the country is the closest nation to socialism on the entire earth. your ancestors negative experience with a one form of socialism (something you can't get over) the socialist process WORKS. there is no reason for you yourself to be this ridiculously upset whenever somebody uses logic against you.

You have not used any logic whatsoever. You just spout nonsense.

Sweden is not socialist. A welfare state is not socialism. McCarthy is dead. Good riddance.

the North Korean and Cuban states are not socialist for the same reason that Obama’s regime, Vietnam, and china are not. None of these regimes are headed for communism. None of them are out to radically reorganize society in order to eliminate all oppression. Socialism can only be understood as a transition to communism — to be advancing toward communism is what it means for society to be organized around the most farsighted and long-term interests of the proletariat.

North Korea and Cuba are socialist. Not all socialism, is headed for communism. Get over yourself.

1. except buildings are products, and in socialist nations, such as China, there is an abundance of products; have you been to walmart lately? like in the time between circa 1990 and now?

2.you're wrong then.

3. you arent paying more for less, your paying more for the same, with the added bonus of security.

4. by 1991, the soviet union had just about collapsed, because of Gorbachev had bastardized the dream.

5. all socialism is headed to communism, otherwise it isn't following the socialist process, ergo losing the term socialist. N. Korea, Cuba, fascist. particularly n. korea.

[Sanguinthium]

ree

I agree, This claim is as funny as it is incorrect, Capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor; it's a fact. You sir should really study on what it means before you say you are one.

If capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor, then how the fuck, do the poor in capitalist societies have a much higher standard of living than the middle classes of socialist societies?

they DON'T

[Sovietiya]

I have heard this somewhere before...


"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

Division of labor, god damn it. He said it tight there.

I was making a joke

[Sanguinthium]

Thank you, sir!

In my opinion, it won't happen because there's no such thing as "Equality." For example Human beings who are born with disabilities (or gain them, such as that woman who got her face mauled by a polar bear. Dumb cow.) will not ever be equal to those without, and Communism tries to implement Equality. But how can you do that with the nature of people today?
That's just my opinion anyway. I'm glad you're a smart person who (unlike some of these people) doesn't fail to realise Communism has never been achieved. And ESPECIALLY by China, the biggest Capitalist on Earth. (I get people saying "China = Communist.")

1. how do you get mauled by a polar bear.. did she try to steal its coke? (you wont get it if you haven't been in america near a television around christmas time)
2. why do most americans not realize that socialism=/=communism? for a nation to be communist it stops being a nation. glad that more than the handful of people i've personally enlightened are aware of this fact
3. China = Socialist in name only; too many of my compatriots mistake this.

[Sovietiya]

If capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor, then how the fuck, do the poor in capitalist societies have a much higher standard of living than the middle classes of socialist societies?

they DON'T

Poverty is poverty, no matter where you are, so in this regard, you are right...
But it depends on what we define as 'poor'. But I generally agree.

[Sovietiya]

Oh, and here are some short videos I want to throw into the mix that I found very interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv2DYoMN ... playnext=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYw ... re=mh_lolz

[Moral Libertarians]

If capitalism sacrifices the well being of the poor, then how the fuck, do the poor in capitalist societies have a much higher standard of living than the middle classes of socialist societies?

they DON'T

They DO

See, we can all use giant fonts. But it's not the size of the words that count, it's what they say.

And in this case, the words say that in Western nations, even today's corporatist, state-afflicted ones, the poorer have excellent standards of living relative to those of even a century ago.

Today, a poor person can feed themselves and their families from any of the large supermarket chains, which specialise in low cost food. They can access the wonders of entertainment and information available on TV. They have (fairly )free speech. And, perhaps most importantly, through the medium of the Internet, they can tap into the collective, pooled knowledge of the human race to educate, entertain, and inform themselves, thus opening up the possibility of improved standards of living.

It is economic growth - real growth, not artificially created booms - not 'central planning' or 'socialism', which help those with less claim to wealth than others.

[Sibirsky]

1. except buildings are products, and in socialist nations, such as China, there is an abundance of products; have you been to walmart lately? like in the time between circa 1990 and now?

China is not socialist.

Buildings are not the only products.

2.you're wrong then.

You are, provably wrong on every single count.

3. you arent paying more for less, your paying more for the same, with the added bonus of security.

Security? You are insane,

You're actually paying less. The higher cost in terms of extremely low pay.

4. by 1991, the soviet union had just about collapsed, because of Gorbachev had bastardized the dream.

Gorby actually did great things.

But those kinds of shortages, were the norm elsewhere. You don't think I remember 2-3 hour long lines, to get a dozen eggs? What kind of idiot thinks that's better?

5. all socialism is headed to communism, otherwise it isn't following the socialist process, ergo losing the term socialist. N. Korea, Cuba, fascist. particularly n. korea.

Socialism = collective or state ownership of the means of production.

In fascism, means of production are controlled by the state, while being in private hands.

they DON'T

Do you ever use facts, or are you content with spouting lies?

This is false. The west's poor, as a group have a higher standard of living, than the middle classes of "middle income economies."

And socialist economies are fucking poor. Low income economies.

Poverty is poverty, no matter where you are, so in this regard, you are right...
But it depends on what we define as 'poor'. But I generally agree.

Poverty in the west, is driving a shit car, that's 20 years old. It's having a small dwelling. It's having only 2 TVs, which are smaller and not HD. Having a cheap DVD player, and not the latest Blue ray player. That's poverty?

Poverty in the third world is not being able to eat. It's spending 40% of your income, or more on food. And not because you dine out all the time and live it up. But because you make so little.

[Sovietiya]

Oh wow, I just realised.
Moral Libertarians, your signature:
'Free market is best market.'

You took that from "North Korea is Best Korea", didn't you!

[Moral Libertarians]

Oh wow, I just realised.
Moral Libertarians, your signature:
'Free market is best market.'

You took that from "North Korea is Best Korea", didn't you!

Actually, I didn't.... but they do look similar.

Meh, it makes the point.

[Sibirsky]

Oh wow, I just realised.
Moral Libertarians, your signature:
'Free market is best market.'

You took that from "North Korea is Best Korea", didn't you!

There is one big difference between those 2 lines.

One, is 100% true, and verifiable.

The other, is the exact opposite of reality. Also verifiable.

[Sovietiya]

Oh wow, I just realised.
Moral Libertarians, your signature:
'Free market is best market.'

You took that from "North Korea is Best Korea", didn't you!

There is one big difference between those 2 lines.

One, is 100% true, and verifiable.

The other, is the exact opposite of reality. Also verifiable.

Once again, I was making a joke...

BTW, about free markets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYw ... plpp_video

Enjoy

[Alagassia]

The Soviet Union, Cuba and all other supposedly "Socialist" countries were not Socialist, they were not even close. By comparison to England they were more Capitalist.

I dont know why your slapping head Sibirsky, unfortunately it's true. If you actually know anything about Socialism then you would know that Socialism is the first phase towards Communism which is the same goal as Anarchy I.E No nation no state. I strive for an end to borders but it neednt be violent a nation born of violence lives violently. I do wish people would know as much as I do about these things *Rolls eyes*

[Sibirsky]

There is one big difference between those 2 lines.

One, is 100% true, and verifiable.

The other, is the exact opposite of reality. Also verifiable.

Once again, I was making a joke...

BTW, about free markets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYw ... plpp_video

Enjoy

Your jokes are not funny.

Somalia, is far from a free market paradise. Yet, despite it's short comings, it has done much better without government, than with the socialist government it had before that.